Defendant

All appeals filed by A and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant A’s speech that the victim would not take photographs.

Although there is a fact of resistance, there is no fact that the victim was injured by the use of physical violence.

Even if it is recognized that part of the violence was used, the injured party's wife suffered cannot be punished as the crime of injury, since it was possible to recover naturally, it did not harm the completeness of body or harm physiological function.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, even if the defendants jointly committed an injury to the victim, the court below acquitted the part on the part of the defendant's participation, which was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the functional control of the joint principal offender.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, injury refers to the fact that the physical condition of the victim is changed to a bad condition of the victim’s body and that the life function is hindered. In this case, if the injured party’s wife is extremely minor and the injured party does not need treatment, and it does not interfere with daily life, and if the injured party’s daily life is naturally cured due to the passage of a day, it cannot be deemed that the injured party’s physical condition was changed to the injured party’s health condition or that the injured party’s life function was hindered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do2673, Dec. 23, 196; 2004Do4437, Oct. 28, 2004).